Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

MackMooney said:
as all my vehicles and are made to deal with ethanol, I don't care what magic brew gets lit on fire, i'm not understanding why this is even an issue. is it everyone just likes to complain about something or other? even my used every 5 years pressure washer thrives on ethanol gas
Click to expand...
I deal with a lot of small engines many of which are used seasonally. If I leave ethanol fuel without fuel stabilizer in them and put them in storage for more than a few months I frequently have to take the carburetors apart and clean them before they'll run again.

A few years ago I started treating every can of gas I bought with sta-bil as soon as I got it home so all my small engines will always have treated fuel. I also started shutting down everything with a fuel shut-off by turning off the fuel and letting the carb bowl run dry. Between those two things I went from having to do yearly carburetor cleanings to not having to do anything at all for the most part.

There are also issues with ethanol not producing as much power although when it's a 10% blend it's not really noticable. OTOH when I had a flex fuel truck I tried running E85 and noted a significant drop in gas milage that made it not worth the lower price.
 
MackMooney said:
as all my vehicles and are made to deal with ethanol, I don't care what magic brew gets lit on fire, i'm not understanding why this is even an issue. is it everyone just likes to complain about something or other? even my used every 5 years pressure washer thrives on ethanol gas
Click to expand...
Some airplane parts/tanks don't work well with ethanol. Ethanol can also pick up and hold water. Small boats have similar issues, so ethanol-free gasoline is commonly sold at marinas.
 
WDD said:
Hard to say if it will be more expensive or less that 100 LL. I don't know how much that lead additive costs vs whatever is needed for the UL version. We don't even know what the new formula will be, let alone being able to predict the cost.

Did George ever address the paint stripping, gasket melting, spontaneous combustion issues, and how it brings back the walking dead?

(I kid, I kid.... :biggrin: )
Click to expand...

The primary aromatics used in G100UL, and in larger quantities than TEL, are more expensive than TEL. George used to give numbers, nit sure what they are currently. Probably ten years ago, he expected the pump price would be about $1 / gallon more.

Tim
 
MackMooney said:
as all my vehicles and are made to deal with ethanol, I don't care what magic brew gets lit on fire, i'm not understanding why this is even an issue.
Click to expand...
Because if an issue doesn't affect you personally, then clearly it can't possibly affect anyone else? :rolleyes:
 
Given 99% or so of the gasoline sold in the US has some ethanol in it, I'd say it probably isn't the destroyer of worlds.

But there are exceptions such as for GA aircraft, and after all this is (for most of the time) an airplane forum.

I do wonder - is ethanol put in your auto gas because it's the cheapest way to make it, or is the price per gallon higher with it but it's put in because of legislation to boost corn sales?
 
WDD said:
I do wonder
Click to expand...
I think it's both.
Ethanol spills aren't an environmental problem (MTBE/ETBE contaminating ground water is a problem), and the corn belt had to be kept happy.

My opinion, it would be better to have corn farmers put solar panels and battery storage on their lands, instead of giving them money for the corn they (don't) grow.
 
WDD said:
I do wonder - is ethanol put in your auto gas because it's the cheapest way to make it, or is the price per gallon higher with it but it's put in because of legislation to boost corn sales?
Click to expand...
Ethanol is about emissions, economics and efficacy. It burns cleaner, stretches the petroleum supply, pays domestic farmers and functions as an octane booster.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I think it's both.
Ethanol spills aren't an environmental problem (MTBE/ETBE contaminating ground water is a problem), and the corn belt had to be kept happy.

My opinion, it would be better to have corn farmers put solar panels and battery storage on their lands, instead of giving them money for the corn they (don't) grow.
Click to expand...
Or Data Centers!
 
Racerx said:
"First, GAMI shared — or rather the FAA shared for it — that its G100UL fuel has begun the ASTM specification process."

I found this interesting. Why would the FAA nudge and announce for Gami they're beginning the ASTM process?
Click to expand...
I mean, could be as simple as the author was editorializing? Who knows, I personally don't find that specific quip particularly significant in either direction.

I do think GAMI is making the correct step in attempting to undergo the EAGLE kabuki. Truly, after years of having the STC in hand, it should be self-evident to these folks that the STC route is a proof-of-concept vanity dead end. Want a snowball's chance at national syndication? Ya gotta do the EAGLE interpretative dancing kabuki, good bad or indifferent. Who knows, maybe that will facilitate the normalization of paint thinner amongst the "mUh sEealhs!" pearl-clutchers.

This is all moot anyways cuz didn't ya hear? 100LL has been guaranteed, the U.S. FAA sent a letter to a foreign additive provider telling them to do so. Whew, we can all go home now. :rofl:
 
hindsight2020 said:
I mean, could be as simple as the author was editorializing? Who knows, I personally don't find that specific quip particularly significant in either direction.

I do think GAMI is making the correct step in attempting to undergo the EAGLE kabuki. Truly, after years of having the STC in hand, it should be self-evident to these folks that the STC route is a proof-of-concept vanity dead end. Want a snowball's chance at national syndication? Ya gotta do the EAGLE interpretative dancing kabuki, good bad or indifferent. Who knows, maybe that will facilitate the normalization of paint thinner amongst the "mUh sEealhs!" pearl-clutchers.

This is all moot anyways cuz didn't ya hear? 100LL has been guaranteed, the U.S. FAA sent a letter to a foreign additive provider telling them to do so. Whew, we can all go home now. :rofl:
Click to expand...
I guess I was reading between the lines too much. I thought I read or watched or hallucinated that the FAA nudged Gami to get the ASTM. Then the FAA shares that Gami is seeking an ASTM.

Perhaps it's not the FAA tipping their hand they Ike g100ul. After all the FAA reintroduced swift into the eagle process after they previously left. But maybe it's the feds maybe trying to actually get a solution and realizing more options is better.
 
Racerx said:
I guess I was reading between the lines too much. I thought I read or watched or hallucinated that the FAA nudged Gami to get the ASTM. Then the FAA shares that Gami is seeking an ASTM.

Perhaps it's not the FAA tipping their hand they Ike g100ul. After all the FAA reintroduced swift into the eagle process after they previously left. But maybe it's the feds maybe trying to actually get a solution and realizing more options is better.
Click to expand...
More options also legitimize that approval path in question. It's just important for any process to have "legitimate contenders" in order to legitimize the process, or launder it if the choice is predetermined. not saying anything nefarious is happening, just making a statement of fact about the role "losers" of a process play in any competition.
 
Isn't Innospec now making noises about not shutting down production in 2030? And now G100UL is aiming for ASTM approval. Hard to say where everything is going. All I know is that asking owners to modify their engines or reduce their power output to use an inferior and inappropriate fuel that is possibly immiscible with 100LL during a transition period is a complete non-starter.
 
Nicely said. I had high hopes, but now I just don’t know what Swift is thinking.
 
chemgeek said:
Isn't Innospec now making noises about not shutting down production in 2030? And now G100UL is aiming for ASTM approval. Hard to say where everything is going. All I know is that asking owners to modify their engines or reduce their power output to use an inferior and inappropriate fuel that is possibly immiscible with 100LL during a transition period is a complete non-starter.
Click to expand...
No, Innospec has said nothing. It was an extremely well written release that said nothing.
Well technically you can argue that Innospec PR did say they will communicate, at some point.

Tim
 
tspear said:
No, Innospec has said nothing. It was an extremely well written release that said nothing.
Well technically you can argue that Innospec PR did say they will communicate, at some point.
Click to expand...
Did they say they were gonna "Endeavor to persevere?"

Ron "Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" Wanttaja
 
what fuel has said they aren't mixable with 100LL? I believe gami and swift both have it stated in their faqs
 
wanttaja said:
Did they say they were gonna "Endeavor to persevere?"

Ron "Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I would have thought it would have been more along the lines of you (pilots) should "endeavor to persevere"
 
MackMooney said:
what fuel has said they aren't mixable with 100LL? I believe gami and swift both have it stated in their faqs
Click to expand...
I believe Swift said their fuel can’t be mixed with GUL. Which is suspicious. If GUL can mix with 100LL, and Swift can mix with 100LL, why can’t Swift mix with GUL?
 
WDD said:
I believe Swift said their fuel can’t be mixed with GUL. Which is suspicious. If GUL can mix with 100LL, and Swift can mix with 100LL, why can’t Swift mix with GUL?
Click to expand...
I feel very confident that Swift never tested G100UL for compatibility with their UL product. They have no commercial incentive for it to be compatible and every incentive to reinforce the issues G100UL has with paint and rubber. Their statement of incompatibility was likely written by Marketing and Legal.
GAMI has the same issue, kind of. They don't want to guarantee detonation margin on a fuel that has not proven it across all the engines under GAMI's STC.
 
WDD said:
I believe Swift said their fuel can’t be mixed with GUL. Which is suspicious. If GUL can mix with 100LL, and Swift can mix with 100LL, why can’t Swift mix with GUL?
Click to expand...

Because Swift doesn’t want you to buy GAMI-gas?
 
tspear said:
No, Innospec has said nothing. It was an extremely well written release that said nothing. Well technically you can argue that Innospec PR did say they will communicate, at some point.
Click to expand...

The fact that they said that they recognize the importance of their ongoing role and intend to cooperative is all that needed to be said. That’s another way of saying “message received, FAA”. They do a lot of US business outside of TEL production (perhaps $1 billion annually?) and do not want to annoy the US Federal Government. The word tariff comes to mind, and if it were to become known that Innospec were crippling US GA while making a lot of money in the US, that would not look good.
 
Last edited:
Tusayan said:
The fact that they said that they recognize the importance of their omgojg role and intend to cooperative is all that needed to be said. That’s another way of saying “message received, FAA”. They do a lot of US business outside of TEL production (perhaps $1 billion annually?) and do not want to annoy the US Federal Government. The word tariff comes to mind, and if it were to become known that Innospec were crippling US GA while making a lot of money in the US, that would not look good.
Click to expand...
That is betting on the current political climate. Which has reliably flipped every couple of years for the past couple of decades. Stagnant or slow changing political climates are a thing of my parents and grand parents generations.
The whole position of Innospec is to say nothing. Likely do nothing and have contingency plans in every direction.

Tim
 
Tusayan said:
The fact that they said that they recognize the importance of their omgojg role and intend to cooperative is all that needed to be said. That’s another way of saying “message received, FAA”. They do a lot of US business outside of TEL production (perhaps $1 billion annually?) and do not want to annoy the US Federal Government. The word tariff comes to mind, and if it were to become known that Innospec were crippling US GA while making a lot of money in the US, that would not look good.
Click to expand...
I suspect it's more the oil major customers vs US gov that is moving the needle. They have a fuel additives business that goes into Jet A and Auto gas. Suspect they are the same folks that buy TEL. Not ****ing them off is good business.
 
WDD said:
I believe Swift said their fuel can’t be mixed with GUL. Which is suspicious. If GUL can mix with 100LL, and Swift can mix with 100LL, why can’t Swift mix with GUL?
Click to expand...
I suspect swift doesn't want anything to do with any of gamis possible issues, which is understandable. imagine gami damages a plane but then the owner mixes in swift, huge cluster.
 
asicer said:
Ethanol is about emissions, economics and efficacy. It burns cleaner, stretches the petroleum supply, pays domestic farmers and functions as an octane booster.
Click to expand...
Ethanol costs huge amounts of diesel fuel, fertilizer, and weedkiller. It requires $BB in subsidies (I.e. taxpayer dollars). It’s not a solution. It’s a mechanism to get votes.
Mark
Born and and grew up in Western Wisconsin
Current co-owner of 3 row crop farms.
 
I doubt it will be the end of 100LL and if it is there are aircraft that can’t run without it without expensive modifications. It may also have other effects on longevity of the high performance engines. I suspect this may be the start of the downfall of part 23 in the sense that there are only 3000 aircraft made annually from 6 manufacturers and parts continue to be hard to find, expensive, and even completely unavailable for some parts.

I would personally like to see it remain available even though I’m not affected and both of my aircraft can fly with mogas. The sheer expense of some of the modification is why I think we may have it longer than 2030. We will see, I don’t think any of us have a crystal ball but we’ve seen other timelines shift.
 
wetzelaviation said:
I suspect this may be the start of the downfall of part 23 in the sense that there are only 3000 aircraft made annually from 6 manufacturers and parts continue to be hard to find, expensive, and even completely unavailable for some parts.
Click to expand...
While new piston aircraft certifications under Part 23 are declining, turbine class aircraft and even the emerging eSTOL and eCTOL class aircraft will keep Part 23 going well into the future. Plus the fact a majority of the legancy recreational aircraft are CAR 3 aircraft to begin with. And now with Part 22 live, it will be interesting how that will affect those legacy OEMs and their continuing support for those older aircraft in the coming years. I wouldn't be surprised if we start to see some of those CAR 3 type certificates get sold off as those OEMs shift away from the recreational market.

And another item to note, Alaska has until 2032 before the 100LL end kicks in. Plus the CASA in Australia has stated they have more than enough 100LL available to operate well after the US 2030/2032 ban and have no intention of switching over. So it seems there is more happening in the background than is being discussed in public.
 
Last edited:
SpinDoctor said:
Ethanol costs huge amounts of diesel fuel, fertilizer, and weedkiller. It requires $BB in subsidies (I.e. taxpayer dollars). It’s not a solution. It’s a mechanism to get votes.
Mark
Born and and grew up in Western Wisconsin
Current co-owner of 3 row crop farms.
Click to expand...
I was using the version of "economics" defined as "where money is being directed", not as "less spent" :)
 
JOhnH said:
There is ethanol free auto fuel. Ethanol free MOGAS is already sold at some airports.
Click to expand...
It varies from state to state. In Connecticut, ethanol free mogas is not sold, period.
WDD said:
I do wonder - is ethanol put in your auto gas because it's the cheapest way to make it, or is the price per gallon higher with it but it's put in because of legislation to boost corn sales?
Click to expand...
In CT at least, all mogas is required to be "oxygenated" for emissions reasons. This used to mean MTBE, but they banned MTBE, so ethanol is the only alternative. A very few marinas sell fuel with isobutanol instead, but I don't know much about it.
 
Dana said:
A very few marinas sell fuel with isobutanol instead, but I don't know much about it.
Click to expand...
From a solvent point-of-view, it is closer to gasoline, with more carbons compared to ethanol. The energy density of isobutanol is better than that of ethanol due to those extra carbons. It is somewhat miscible with water and is a bit viscous compared to ethanol. It has a boiling point of 108 °C, around 227 °F. It mixes well with the compounds found in gasoline. I don't know what it does to seals, but it is probably benign compared to ethanol if the boaters are using it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top